To absolutely no one’s surprise, the US Congress is still going after foreign aid in an attempt to seem tough on spending, as The New York Times reported this week. Although there appear to be few developments since I wrote about this issue in July, the discussions and subsequent hand-wringing are back in the open. James M. Lindsay, in a post for the Council on Foreign Relations, is also puzzled as to why we’re all talking about this now, but he points out out that everyone seems to be ganging up on foreign aid. Both the Republican-majority House and the Democrat-led Senate have proposed cuts: while President Obama asked for $42 billion for 2012, the Senate appropriations subcommittee has proposed $37 billion and the House subcommittee $32 billion. It appears that the American (or American political) appetite for foreign aid programs has disappeared. It is easy to propose cuts to programs that operate internationally, though I can’t imagine “defense” spending is going to be proportionally trimmed. Foreign aid makes up one percent of the American federal budget, and any politician screaming about how we should be directing funds to domestic projects (here’s looking at you, Rep. Kay Granger) is doing so for straight political points, not because they seriously care about a balanced budget. Cuts like these will have very real impacts on global health and development programs around the world, however, especially in a time of economic and sociopolitical turmoil. As Jeremy Konyndyk, director of policy and advocacy for Mercy Corps, said in the aforementioned Times article, “The amount of money the US has or doesn’t have doesn’t really rise or fall on the foreign aid budget. The budget impact is negligible. The impact around the world is enormous.”
In an opinion piece for The Huffington Post, Jeffrey Sachs points out the big funding black holes in US foreign aid programs, clarifies confusions around foreign aid, and proposes solutions. Those big expenditures are in construction contracts with big companies like Halliburton, Bechtel, and so on, and in bilateral (state-to-state) funding to “crony governments,” such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Egypt. In the latter case, the US knows the money is being wasted away through inefficiency and corruption but pays up anyway for diplomatic reasons. In the former, Dr. Sachs suggests something about campaign contributions and those big corporations. He argues that these funding dumps need to stop and that programs should be focused on specific issues, such as HIV/AIDS or hunger: funding should be invested in “practical, targeted, and scientifically-oriented programs,” such as the Global Fund or agriculture programs. He also points out that most Americans overestimate by up to 30 times how much foreign aid the US disburses, which has something to do with fatigue over how much we’ve perceived to have spent. Furthermore, Dr. Sachs proposes cutting military spending by $200 billion (yeah, right) and taking one-eighth of that funding–$25 billion–to double the foreign aid investment in programs for the poorest countries in the world. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney, a front-running candidate for the Republican presidential bid, has promised to increase military spending if elected, arguing that the “most powerful” country in the world just needs a few more missiles to achieve world peace and keep dictatorships at bay. Because being a military superpower has been incredibly successful in preventing global conflicts and promoting democracy so far. Oh, wait.
I’m sorry to be coming off so cynically, but it’s so frustrating to see foreign aid take the hit again and again and again. I can say from personal experience that foreign aid spending is one of the best things the US does for its diplomatic and foreign policy efforts. Global health programs like PEPFAR (for HIV/AIDS) or the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) have saved millions of lives. There are certainly reforms that must take place to make foreign aid programs more efficient and effective, such as those proposed by Dr. Sachs. In the grand scheme of things, however, even the inefficient programs aren’t costing the American taxpayers that much, and their percentage of federal expenditures is a merely drop, and one of the good and moral ones at that, in the pork barrel bucket.
To end on a happier note, Happy Birthday to anti-Apartheid hero and Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is 80 today. His birthday has been a subject of controversy, however, since the South African government failed to grant a visa to the Dalai Lama. It’s great to see he’s just as much of a firecracker as ever and just as unwavering in speaking truth to power.
Header photo via Tyne & Wear Archives and Museums, from The Commons.
